Abstract
In this study, we analyzed the performance of a preliminary three-dimensional (3D) velocity model of the Eastern Caucasus covering most of the Azerbaijan. The model was developed in support to long-period ground motion simulations and seismic hazard assessment from regional earthquakes in Azerbaijan. The model’s performance was investigated by simulating ground motion from the damaging Mw 5.9, 2012 Zaqatala earthquake, which was well recorded throughout the region by broadband seismic instruments. In our simulations, we use a parallelized finite-difference method of fourth-order accuracy. The comparison between the simulated and recorded ground motion velocity in the modeled period range of 3–20 s shows that in general, the 3D velocity model performs well. Areas in which the model needs improvements are located mainly in the central part of the Kura basin and in the Caspian Sea coastal areas. Comparisons of simulated ground motion using our 3D velocity model and corresponding 1D regional velocity model were used to locate areas with strong 3D wave propagation effects. In areas with complex underground structure, the 1D model fails to produce the observed ground motion amplitude and duration, and spatial extend of ground motion amplification caused by wave propagation effects.
Highlights
The Eastern Caucasus region has a long history of damaging earthquakes (KONDORSKAYA and SHEBALIN 1977; STORCHAK et al 2013)
We test the performance of a preliminary regional 3D velocity model developed by GOK et al (2011) by simulating ground motion in the period range of 3–20 s from the Mw 5.9, May 7, 2012
The simulated ground motion was compared with observed ground motion at seismic stations in the Azerbaijan region
Summary
The model was developed in support to long-period ground motion simulations and seismic hazard assessment from regional earthquakes in Azerbaijan. The model’s performance was investigated by simulating ground motion from the damaging Mw 5.9, 2012 Zaqatala earthquake, which was well recorded throughout the region by broadband seismic instruments. The comparison between the simulated and recorded ground motion velocity in the modeled period range of 3–20 s shows that in general, the 3D velocity model performs well. Comparisons of simulated ground motion using our 3D velocity model and corresponding 1D regional velocity model were used to locate areas with strong 3D wave propagation effects. In areas with complex underground structure, the 1D model fails to produce the observed ground motion amplitude and duration, and spatial extend of ground motion amplification caused by wave propagation effects
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
